04-22-1996 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Evaluation criteria include; effectiveness • the extent to which alternatives meet defined project goals, as well as local, state and national goals (transportation and other) cost effectiveness • the direct and indirect costs of the project financial feasibility, within a realistic framework of funding availability equity • feir distribution of costs and benefits across economic, geographical, ethnic and other subgroups Social, economic and environmental impacts are to be assessed. The MIS process is intended to evaluate the full range of impacts of various transportation alternatives. No single criterion takes precedence over the others, and the public is to be involved in the decision on how to apply the evaluation criteria. Alternatives which survive the MIS process are still subject to environmental evaluation following the EIS or Environmental Assessment process. C. Financial Framework Mn/DOT staff have indicated that the cost effectiveness and financial feasibility criteria will be emphasized for the TH 12 project. A formal cost/benefit analysis will be done for all alternatives, with each alternative assigned a rating. Only direct, quantifiable costs and benefits will be used to calculate the rating. This would include capital and operating costs, including right-of-way acquisition costs, but not the cost of the lost commercial tax base, for example. Quantifiable benefits would also include travel time savings and reduced accidents throughout the length of the corridor Mn/DOT also is emphasizing the financial feasibility of the alternatives, in light of reduced funding for highways. Alternatives making use of existing right-of-way and entailing minimum new construction are likely to fare well. As noted above, TSM alternatives have costs ranging from $80-100 million, as compared with costs for new four-lane highways that fall in the $300-400 million range. PARSONS BRINCKERHOFF w:\longlake\report.doc